President Abraham Lincoln had been warned by Gen. George B. McClellan not to interfere with the institution of slavery. McClellan was a War Democrat, willing to fight to preserve the Union, but unwilling to do anything about the root cause of the rebellion that threatened the life of the nation.

Ironically, it was McClellans victory at the Battle of Antietam on September 17, 1862, that had given Lincoln the opportunity he needed to issue his Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. In that document, the President warned rebellious states in the South that they would have their slaves freed if they did not cease their insurrection against the federal government and once again obey the laws of the Union.

That hundred-day period had been a difficult one for President Lincoln. There would be political reverses in the mid-term congressional elections that fall. Democrats campaigned on the slogan The Union as it was and the Constitution as it is. That meant slavery would be secure in all the states where it then existed. They picked up congressional seats and won key state governorships.

And then, there was the disastrous Union defeat at Fredericksburg, Virginia. Thousands of Union soldiers died in thirteen fruitless charges against Maryes Heights. An extraordinary appearance of the Northern Lights on the night of that battle led people to say the very heavens were draped in mourning.

Now, on January 1, 1863, Lincoln proved true to his word on Emancipation. But, as he sat down to sign the engrossed copy of the historic document, he noted an error in the text. Lincoln knew that the U.S. Supreme Court was hostile to Emancipation. If there was a single error, Lincoln knew the pro-slavery Chief Justice Roger B. Taney would strike down the Emancipation Proclamation. So he ordered it re-copied for signature later that same day.

Meanwhile, President Lincoln had to stand for hours shaking thousands of hands in the traditional New Years Day reception at the White House. When he came back to sign the Emancipation Proclamation, his hand was shaking. As his puzzled colleagues looked on,he exercised his weary arm.

He explained: If I am remembered for anything, it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it. He did not want future generations to see a feeble signature and say he hesitated. So he signed it Abraham Lincoln. He wrote out his full name, not signing it as he usually did, A. Lincoln.

January 1, 2013, the National Archives places the Emancipation Proclamation on rare public display, the text is hardly legible, the victim of age and light. But Abraham Lincoln stands out clearly.

Some cynics today say Lincoln freed no slaves where he had power and all the slaves where he did not. Then, too, the London newspapers adopted a snarky tone: The high principle of Mr. Lincolns proclamation is that a man may not own a man unless he is loyal to Mr. Lincolns government.

That criticism was as ignorant as it was unfair. Lincoln was no despot. He knew that he could not constitutionally deprive loyal citizens of their slaves so long as they obeyed the laws. He pleaded and cajoled the congressmen from the loyal slave states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. They stubbornly refused his offers of compensated emancipation.

Lincoln was an able lawyer who new his brief. He had been a reader of Richmond newspapers for years. When secessionist editors boasted that the South could outlast the North because they could send all their young men into the army, while slaves would work the farms and factories, Lincoln took note.

Because the rebels themselves claimed slavery was a military asset, Lincoln knew he was on solid ground in freeing those slaves. His Emancipation Proclamation was a constitutional exercise of his powers as commander-in-chief of the army and navy. He justified it as an act of military necessity.

Abraham Lincoln is remembered as the Great Emancipator. He knew that the advance of the Union armies would bring freedom to millions.

Lincolns bold black signature had done this. And he would do more. As the movie, Lincoln, so clearly shows, the president was the prime mover behind the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. That measure ended slavery in every state. Its a shame that the able writers and directors of this new movie did not show Lincoln signing that amendment, too. A presidents signature is not necessary for a constitutional amendment, but Lincoln once again had his whole heart and soul in it.

This is the day, January 1, 1863, one hundred fifty years ago, that changed America forever. From that date onward, Father Abrahams armies, the armies of the United States, became armies of liberation. Those soldiers, black and white, carried freedom in their haversacks.

The writer demonstrates his lack of a real education. The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics. The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor - and they succeeded. Lincoln’s freeing of the slaves was simply a tactic of war. While he was personally against slavery, he repeatedly indicated that he accepted the Southerners right to own slaves:

Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, “Letter to Alexander H. Stephens” (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

Even more telling is this quote:
“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

Go to the head of the class. The economic tug of war began early on. I can't remember exactly, but somehow I recall things labelled the "intolerable tariffs" in the 1820's that were designed to "bring those 'suthrnrs' to their bended knees." or some such.

But now I've probably started a firestorm.

3
posted on 01/01/2013 7:32:40 AM PST
by ConradofMontferrat
(According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)

Before I say anything, first let me say that I love the South and the bravery and fortitude of the Southern soldier is second to none. Their endurance and courage is part of our proud history that is shared by all Americans.

Having said that, I must partly disagree with your statement above.

I am not a professor of history, nor am I a licensed history teacher, but I am a long time Civil War buff and an avid reader of it’s battles, it’s leadership, and its causes, not only through individual historians viewpoints, but from the speeches, letters, diaries, and other writings from those who lived during that time period.

My disagreement lies in a couple of places. First, to say that slavery had nothing to do with the cause of the war is plainly not true. It is not the only cause, but it certainly was a major issue in aggravating an already strained relationship. And second, though it has been pointed out Lincoln did not advocate eradicating slavery where it already existed nor did he fight the war initially with the purpose of eradicating slavery, he certainly DID oppose its expansion into the new states being formed from the territories.

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, he clearly makes it plain that while he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, that where it was already in place, it could not be constitutionally interfered with on the executive level. I cannot remember what he said in regard to congressional action, but I believe he would have said that the states in which slavery exists are the only ones who could alter it in any way - not any outside political entity.

However, as is also clear in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, because he believed slavery to be a moral wrong, it should not be allowed outside of those states where it already existed - it should not even be permitted to be voted on by the territories becoming new states. This was the whole point of the Lincoln/Douglas debates - should the new states/territories be allowed to decide whether or not slavery should be legally permitted within their borders?

The Southern leadership knew that if future states formed from the territories were all “free” states, sooner or later their congressional representation would be critically outnumbered by the free states in Congress. This, they feared, would lead to the eventual interference by Congress and the presidency to destroy their economy based on slave labor. They rightly understood that that would greatly disrupt their whole economic foundation - especially of those who were plantation owners - who were the movers and shakers in Southern society and politics.

This is why the Southern leadership firmly and uniformly opposed Lincoln’s election as president, because he stood against the expansion of slavery into the new states to be formed from the territories. Therefore, slavery WAS an important element in the issues that separated North from South. It was not the only issue, but it was certainly and important element of the growing hostility between the two.

Lincoln also was strongly opposed to secession as utilized by the Southern states. He felt that if a state could simply vote itself out of the United States anytime it so desired, that that was a direct threat to the existence of the nation. He feared that this would lead to an eventual “Europeanizing” of the United States in which, as under the Articles of Confederation, each state acted as an independent country.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying secession isn’t sometimes necessary, but I can see Lincoln’s point. On the other hand, if I felt, as many in the South felt, and as many of us do here on FR, that the Federal government is intruding more and more and leading the nation away from its founding principles, then I can certainly see the necessity of secession - but only for the right reasons.

The question is, did the South secede for the right reasons and was there enough provocation to merit secession? I don’t think so, but that is why we all still argue over the Civil War (or the Second American Revolution as my Southern brothers like to put it).

The purpose of this response is not to pick a fight, but I did feel it necessary to give an alternate view. I love discussing our history and only wish to point out my observations from the research I’ve done pouring over books on the subject, but also from the reading/studying of the writings of the leaders on both sides, North and South.

By the time of the “Civil” War, 75% of the Federal budget was derived from tariffs on exports (tobacco and cotton) from southern ports. There was no income tax at that time. The South had complained for decades they were not getting fair distributions of those funds to allow the South to participate in the Industrial Revolution. It is surprising that Secession did not occur sooner.
As usual,just follow the money. MR. lincoln got his war and freed NO slaves except those in the South.
As for those attending the fairy tale movie,”Lincoln”, no amount of discussion will alter their convictions. “I know it’s real, I saw it in the movies”.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, “Letter to Horace Greeley” (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

This is the day, January 1, 1863, one hundred fifty years ago, that changed America forever.

Yep! The day the federal government decided it could blatantly ignore the Constitution and its Law.

From the US Supreme Court's Court of Appeals establishing the legal precedent that the US government was Constitutionally obligated to follow-

I regard this as but the entering wedge to other doctrines which are designed to extirpate slavery; and we may find when it is too late, that the patience of the south, however well founded upon principle, from repeated aggression will become exhausted. These considerations would have no influence with me if I could satisfy myself of the unconstitutionality of the law of congress; but I can never contribute in any manner, either directly or indirectly, to the abolition of slavery, however great an evil it may be, in violation of the constitution and laws of the country, and in violation of the solemn compact which was made by our forefathers at the adoption of the constitution, and which their posterity are bound to preserve inviolate. I am sustained in this view of the case by the whole current of authority, in all the states where the question has been decided. Jack v. Martin , 1835

13
posted on 01/01/2013 9:22:02 AM PST
by MamaTexan
(To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.” The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, “Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois” (September 18, 1858), pp. 145-146.

AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."

The people of the State of Mississippi, in convention assembled, do ordain and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, as follows, to wit:

Section 1. That all the laws and ordinances by which the said State of Mississippi became a member of the Federal Union of the United States of America be, and the same are hereby, repealed, and that all obligations on the part of the said State or the people thereof to observe the same be withdrawn, and that the said State doth hereby resume all the rights, functions, and powers which by any of said laws or ordinances were conveyed to the Government of the said United States, and is absolved from all the obligations, restraints, and duties incurred to the said Federal Union, and shall from henceforth be a free, sovereign, and independent State.

Section 2. That so much of the first section of the seventh article of the constitution of this State as requires members of the Legislature and all officers, executive and judicial, to take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States be, and the same is hereby, abrogated and annulled.

Section 3. That all rights acquired and vested under the Constitution of the United States, or under any act of Congress passed, or treaty made, in pursuance thereof, or under any law of this State, and not incompatible with this ordinance, shall remain in force and have the same effect as if this ordinance had not been passed.

Section 4. That the people of the State of Mississippi hereby consent to form a federal union with such of the States as may have seceded or may secede from the Union of the United States of America, upon the basis of the present Constitution of the said United States, except such parts thereof as embrace other portions than such seceding States.

Thus ordained and declared in convention the 9th day of January, in the year of our Lord 1861.

15
posted on 01/01/2013 9:25:10 AM PST
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

Slavery was economics as far as the South was concerned. Slaves were the labor that produced the yields of crops and they were also a commodity to be bought and sold. It was this system, this economy the Southern plutocrats were fighting to keep.

Maybe there were multiple causes depending on your region, politics, religion, etc.? Maybe things were more complex than neat little declarative statements make it seem? Maybe there were deep, social tensions in our society that had been with us since the start of the republic including abolition, state’s rights, economics, taxes, etc.?

19
posted on 01/01/2013 12:44:51 PM PST
by Owl558
("Those who remember George Satayana are doomed to repeat him")

The war was started by the slave power. Its proponents had over 4 billion dollars (then year) invested in slaves. The notion that slavery was evil would eventually bring the moral people of the US to forbid slavery in the territories, as had already been done in the Northwest Territory.

The southern slave power desired to profit off their investment. They attempted to invade the territories, and attempted to invade northern states that they did not claim.

They had no case to bring to the supreme court. They sought a decision on the battlefield. They lost.

The south made war to promote and propagate slavery. The US responded to the insurrection, and ending slavery was part of denying the ends of the war to the insurrectionists.

20
posted on 01/01/2013 12:52:20 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

1. The North was not "industrial" in 1860 except as contrasted with the backward South. A considerable majority of northerners were farmers or involved with services to farmers. Only a minority had anything to do with industry.

2. The South insisted, vociferously, that it was determined to remain agricultural. There was no plot to "force" it to do so.

3. In 1860 white southerners were on average considerably better off than white northerners. If I remember correctly, the per capita income was about 2x than of the North.

After the war the South did indeed remain agricultural and poor for decades, but that was a result of the war itself, not the cause of the war.

spaced from post #2: "The cause of the Civil War was not slavery; it was economics. The industrial North wanted to keep the South agricultural and poor - and they succeeded."

First of all, claiming "economics" caused secession is like calling slavery a "peculiar institution". Regardless of what you call it -- "economics" or "peculiar institution" it's still the same thing: slavery.

Sherman Logan post #22: "In 1860 white southerners were on average considerably better off than white northerners. If I remember correctly, the per capita income was about 2x than of the North."

"spaced", "Phosgood" and others here are suffering long term effects from generations of Neo-Confederate historical revisionist propaganda. So in their minds they reverse the actual pre-war economic and political situation.

Second, in actual fact, the South had dominated economically and politically since the founding of the Republic. So in 1860 it was Southern dominance at stake, not some phantasm of alleged Northern "oppression". For generations, Southern gentlemen had dominated their slaves, and dominated the American Republic, and they well understood that such dominance is maintained only through forceful actions.

In 1860, Northern white per-capita income averaged around $140, in the South around $150. In the South and North Great Lakes, farmers averaged around 50% of white males, but only 30% in New England and Middle Atlantic states. Here similarities end.

In a nation with white per-capita annual income of $150, South Carolina's per-capita wealth was nearly $1,900 -- compared to about $500 in New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Mississippi and Louisiana were comparable to South Carolina, while Georgia, Alabama and Florida averaged around $1,000 per-capita. Even the poorer Southern states like Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina, were all as wealthy per-capita as, say, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Illinois.

Yes, it's true, no Southern state was the industrial powerhouse of Northern states like Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and New York, but Southern states like Virginia, Georgia, Maryland and Kentucky all had as many factory workers in 1860 as northern states like Illinois, Indiana and Michigan.

The South's wealth came foremost from slaves, then valued at $3 billion, equal to the value of Southern land itself, and more than double the value of Northern manufacturing and railroads combined. Considered "economically", slaves were more profitable than any other investment you could think of, especially since they could be hired out to work in factories, on railroads, etc. And that is precisely the reason Northern "free labor" hated slavery.

Three billion dollars in 1860 was about 20% of all US wealth, equivalent in today's economy to around $10 trillion.

So, for the slave-holders who dominated the South, "economics" meant "our peculiar institution", which meant: slavery.

Point is: one reason Southerners didn't develop as much manufacturing, is because agriculture was the tried and proved method for becoming wealthy.

Finally, it's often pointed out, the South had fewer than half the railroad miles of the North, and these were neither standardized nor interconnected for interstate commerce or strategic military purposes. True enough, but Southern railroads were intended to move goods and people to their market-places and so more Southerners had access to nearby rail service than their supposedly more advanced Northern cousins.

So my point again is: before 1860, the South dominated the nation economically and politically. It was this domination (not some sort of "oppression") which was first seriously threatened by Lincoln's election in November 1860, leading South Carolina slave-holders to begin the process of declaring secession, forming a Confederacy then starting and formally declaring war on the United States, May 6, 1861.

So the correct point to make is not that Southerners in 1860 typically had more access to railroads than Northerners, but rather that, despite relatively fewer rail miles, in some states, nearly as many Southerners as Northerners could reach a railroad within a few hours.

Finally, it's often pointed out, the South had fewer than half the railroad miles of the North, and these were neither standardized nor interconnected for interstate commerce or strategic military purposes.

It should also be noted that the South had a much more extensive network of navigable rivers and therefore less need for railroads to move its goods to market. Of course, as it turned out, in time of war those rivers were a great vulnerability.

I agree with you about the myth of "northern industry." In fact, up through 1850 there was no "north against south" sectional standoff. There was a three-way split, "industrial" (north)East against the agricultural (north)West and South.

The South was normally able to gang up with the West to win its political battles against the East.

Starting in 1850 the South overplayed its hand, insisting that the settled (by the Missouri Compromise) issue of the expansion of slavery be reopened. This turned slavery from a backburner issue into the most important issue of the day, in the process driving away the South's natural agricultural allies in the West.

It was this domination (not some sort of "oppression") which was first seriously threatened by Lincoln's election in November 1860

Excellent point. It should be noted, however, that southerners believed that the only way they could protect their way of life and the "peculiar institution" on which it was based was to maintain that dominance.

They believed it was rule or ruin for them. And they were quite correct in this belief.

The irony, of course, is that their more and more desperate attempts to protect and spread slavery just drove away their natural allies in the West and as a result created the northern coalition that eventually destroyed them.

The Tredegar Iron Works was a historic iron works in Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.[3] Opened in 1837, by 1860 it was the third-largest iron manufacturer in the United States.[4] During the American Civil War, the works served as the primary iron and artillery production facility of the Confederate States of America. The iron works avoided destruction during the Evacuation Fire of 1865, and continued production through the middle of the 20th century.

31
posted on 01/02/2013 7:13:58 AM PST
by central_va
( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)

central_va quoting: "The Tredegar Iron Works was a historic iron works in Richmond, Virginia, United States of America.[3] Opened in 1837, by 1860 it was the third-largest iron manufacturer in the United States.["

Tennessee also developed heavy industry. Quoting:

"There was little heavy industry in the South but the Western Iron District in Middle Tennessee was the largest iron producer in Confederacy in 1861. One of the largest operations was the Cumberland Iron Works, which the Confederate War Department tried and failed to protect.[23]"

During the fiscal year ending 1 June 1860, the country possessed some 128,300 industrial establishments. Of these, 110,274 were located in states that remained in the Union. The most heavily industrialized states, New York and Pennsylvania, each had more industry than all the seceding states combined. In 1860, too, America had a total of $1,050,000,000 invested in real and personal property devoted to business, with $949,335,000 concentrated in the North; Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts each had a larger investment than the South as a whole. Finally, the North contributed 92.5% of the $1.9 billion that comprised the total value of annual product in the country in 1860.

33
posted on 01/02/2013 1:43:40 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

Part of the problem was that slaves had to be kept ignorant to be slaves.

To be ignorant, was to have low productivity. Agriculture had to be dumbed down so that ignorant slaves could accomplish simple tasks.

Any slave that acquired a knowledge of simple geography could decide to no longer be a slave. Many did. By obtaining papers from Canada, they secured protection from the professional kidnappers that were the hirelings of the slave power.

35
posted on 01/02/2013 2:08:30 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

I understand it was closer to 4 billion$, but don’t have the source just now.

That shows how heavily the slave power was invested in slavery. And they pretend that the war started for what?

And recognize that the elimination of chattel slavery didn’t kill the slaves. The productive power that existed before the war was still there. Probably the industrious former slaves could increase their education and productivity.

For the investors in slave property, it must have been very painful to no longer be able to profit from that species of misery.

39
posted on 01/02/2013 2:44:24 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

'Forever' stamps - stamps which you can buy at today's price yet use to mail a first-class letter even after postal rates increase - have always had the word 'forever' on them.

I doubt the 'forever' on my Lady Liberty Forever Stamps meant that I could use it forever, but the 'forever' on the Emancipation Forever Stamps was cleverly drawn from "then, thenceforward, and forever free."

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

44
posted on 01/02/2013 3:44:16 PM PST
by Scoutmaster
(You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)

There were about 4M slaves, and $4B would require an average price of $1000. My understanding is that is more than a little high, so I use $750 instead.

Here’s a really interesting article about slave prices. It points out that comparing prices from one period to another is intrinsically challenging, but using three possible ways of doing so, the $500 average price of a slave in 1850 equates to somewhere between $11,000 and $162,000 today.

I don’t think people realize what happened in the South when the slaves were freed. The South had been investing its capital into slaves for many decades, and all of that capital - as capital - suddenly disappeared. Couldn’t be used as collateral for a loan or any other purpose.

So while the productive capacity of the region, deducting of course for the immense physical damage caused by the war, was perhaps theoretically higher, decades of capital accumulation had disappeared.

Think of the financial pain caused by the slight decline in wealth caused by our recent housing bubble burst. I have seen figures of perhaps 5% loss in national wealth, much higher of course for many individuals.

When the slaves were freed, the South lost perhaps 1/3 or more of its prewar capital.

(That presumes that all the slaves were in states that left the union, and that all the business property invested in union states had nothing to do with slavery, but the disparity is so stark, the argument survives the inaccuracy of the statistics.)

48
posted on 01/02/2013 5:02:52 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.